Re: Debian Games Team Policy
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:42:09PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 at 13:50:00 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> > In recent times I've thought about expanding it into a more general games
> > policy and covering the Quake family, etc.
> This means the use of diversions may well be appropriate for Doom, but isn't
> appropriate for ioquake3.
I wouldn't propose them for Quake 3. All I would want to capture is the
de-facto agreed virtual package names (which should be fed up to debian-policy
once adopted anyway: see virtual-package-names-list.txt, section "Games and
> I'm not sure what category the other Quake engines fall into - but to be honest
> if we had the Quake 1 and 2 engines packaged, I'd be inclined to just put them
> in contrib and give them a hard dependency on the non-distributable ID data,
> since I haven't heard of any game content for either Quake 1 or 2 that's
> as complete as the likes of OpenArena, Urban Terror or World of Padman.
Agreed with the present state of F/OSS game data for those engines. But if
OpenQuartz or similar did develop into something useful, how would we
transition from hard dependency to virtual-package mediated? We'd need an
engine upload (possibly with no other changes) to swap the dependency. If we
use a virtual package dependency now, we can introduce another implementation
that works with existing engine packages.